'13 AR RB Altee Tenpenny (Alabama Verbal)

[irishtrooper]

If a person is that drunk, wouldn't they do something that actually warranted pulling them over (speeding or steering erratically)? Why would you need to resort to things like not using a turn signal when nobody is around or a license plate light or a broken tail light or whatever to pull someone over? That just seems like fishing for someone who had three or four beers. Which again, to me, seems like trying to screw with people for the sake of it without any real benefit to the public.

Driving is a divided attention task. Not using your turn signal or failing to dim your headlights are exactly the types of things that impaired people struggle with while driving. That is why the nationally recognized standardized field sobriety tests are given and they require the subject to perform.......divided attention tasks. So, to your point not using a turn signal is EXACTLY the violation that police should be searching for

 

[Emcee77]

You should write the legislature and try to get some laws changed then. For instance in Pennsylvania a seatbelt violation is considered a secondary offense and can only constitute a stop if coupled with another primary violation. As I said before, some people just lack the understanding. Under your thoughts, sooooo many drunk drivers would be allowed to endanger the lives of innocent people. Look, I am not saying It is perfect the way it is, but I think your argument is wrongheaded. I am not changing your mind and you aren't changing mine.

I think that's a fair point. The issue of what information the officer needs to have to stop a suspected drunk driver, in light of the grave danger a drunk driver represents to the safety of innocent motorists, is presently before the United States Supreme Court:

Navarette v. California : SCOTUSblog

There's a strong argument that the officer should not have to wait until a suspected drunk driver strays across the center line or otherwise drives erratically before the officer can initiate a traffic stop ... because the one and only time the suspected drunk driver crosses the line, it could kill an oncoming motorist. We will see what the Court does with it, but obviously the officer must at least have some reliable information on which to base a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, such as a tip from a citizen who saw the suspect driving erratically, before he makes the stop.

But irishtrooper, I feel like you are still misunderstanding. Obviously, at least looking at each case in isolation, any time an officer pulls somebody over for a traffic violation based on a good faith effort to enforce the traffic laws, that is fine.

But you've admitted that police officers don't pull over every person they see violating a traffic law. Suppose we followed a state trooper around and we were able to chart (a) how many violations he noticed, and (b) how many of the violators he noticed AND actually decided to stop. Then suppose we found that he stopped 90% of the black and Latino violators but only 50% of the white violators. You seem to be saying that that's ok because every person he stopped was indeed violating a traffic law. But obviously that kind of selective enforcement of the law is not ok.

 

[irishtrooper]

I think that's a fair point. The issue of what information the officer needs to have to stop a suspected drunk driver, in light of the grave danger a drunk driver represents to the safety of innocent motorists, is presently before the United States Supreme Court:

Navarette v. California : SCOTUSblog

There's a strong argument that the officer should not have to wait until a suspected drunk driver strays across the center line or otherwise drives erratically before the officer can initiate a traffic stop ... because the one and only time the suspected drunk driver crosses the line, it could kill an oncoming motorist. We will see what the Court does with it, but obviously the officer must at least have some reliable information on which to base a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, such as a tip from a citizen who saw the suspect driving erratically, before he makes the stop.

But irishtrooper, I feel like you are still misunderstanding. Obviously, at least looking at each case in isolation, any time an officer pulls somebody over for a traffic violation based on a good faith effort to enforce the traffic laws, that is fine.

But you've admitted that police officers don't pull over every person they see violating a traffic law. Suppose we followed a state trooper around and we were able to chart (a) how many violations he noticed, and (b) how many of the violators he noticed AND actually decided to stop. Then suppose we found that he stopped 90% of the black and Latino violators but only 50% of the white violators. You seem to be saying that that's ok because every person he stopped was indeed violating a traffic law. But obviously that kind of selective enforcement of the law is not ok.

I am happy that we can agree here. I would add that people of a different race make up approximately 2% of my stops. The percentage of minorities here where I work is higher than the percentage I stop. I know that this doesn't agree with some of the theories espoused here, but that is the case.

 

[Yorkehead82]

IMHO, the problem is there are way too many police officers in certain areas. I live in Fort Collins, where there is little to no crime, and on my 8 mile drive to work I see an average of 5 cops each way (and they usually have someone pulled over). I just don't think the police officers have anything else to do but pull over people for very minor traffic violations. So many tickets are handed out here that there is a saying, "Come to Fort Collins for vacation, go on probation." I think it's all of these little petty tickets that cause people to view the police in a negative light. I got a "following too closely" ticket on my way home from work the day before Thanksgiving. The officer said I was one second behind the car in front of me instead of two, and he gave me a ticket that swallowed up my whole day's pay. It's just a hard pill to swallow, as a grown man, to have another grown man I've never met, poop on my day, for something so trivial

 

[Rhode Irish]

You may be surprised to hear this,but sometimes bad people do not use their turn signal. I can't believe how people actually think. It is not just people being bullies when they pull someone over. Why don't you just make it so nobody gets pulled over for anything. Your viewpoints seem to be extremely out of touch. You have no idea that a great deal of actual criminals would not be caught if you had your way.

I'm trying to be respectful here, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Sure, bad people may not use a turn signal sometimes but that shouldn't be a reason to pull someone over for not using their turn signal. You are admitting the minor infraction is pretext so you can cast your net out there and possibly pick up a bad guy in the process. (Bad guys also eat lunch, you wouldn't therefore use that as a justification to search everybody that ever eats lunch, though.)

If that was what the spirit of the law intended, you wouldn't even need the pretense of the broken tail light or the failure to use a turn signal. You could just pull people over on a hunch to see if they are a bad guy. And furthermore, while a bad guy may forget to use a turn signal sometimes, forgetting to use a turn signal a not an indicator that the driver is a bad guy. For that reason, I don't think having a broken tail light of forgetting to use a blinker or rolling through a stop sign are good enough reasons to ruin someone's day by pulling them over. Those "infractions" are bogus.

If a person you loved was hurt by these drunk drivers you think should have to be speeding for the police to stop, you might have a different opinion. My life has been touched personally in a negative way due to their actions. I am not saying there should be a roadcheck at every bar or anything, but if we did things your way it would greatly endanger the public. Again, I am through arguing this as people with your persuasion will always be at odds with me.

I am not a supporter of drunk driving. At all. I think it is incredibly dangerous and a serious thing. But I also think if someone is really drunk to the point of being dangerous to other drivers you can nail them for driving erratically and you don't have to make up a reason like the turn signal or whatever. I get to a four way stop and there's nobody else there, or if I'm going to make a turn or take an exit and nobody is behind me or coming the other way, I don't use my turn signal. It isn't because I'm always too drunk; it just isn't necessary. I think it is a huge stretch for you to try to say that a driver that is otherwise driving the speed limit and under control may raise suspicion of drunk driving because they don't use a turn signal or have a broken tail light.

 

[irishtrooper]

Wow is all I can say. I guess since the laws agree with me, maybe you could be wrong. Please kindly refer to my prior post regarding divided attention tasks.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yeah, I think the law is not nearly protective enough of individuals in these kinds of situations, and that courts have been too deferential to law enforcement and not deferential enough to the the 4th amendment. I'm not sure that makes you or the laws right.

I answered your questions before about the difference between guns and cars. I'd be interested in hearing your response to my suggestion that cops use these minor offenses as pretext to stop people so they can fish for bad guys. You seem to have already admitted that goes on, so what I'm interested in is your opinion about whether that is fair to the average person that has to have their day interrupted as a result of these fishing expeditions.

 

[Emcee77]

Right, I'm curious about that too.

I'm not aware of any case squarely addressing this question. Nor will there be one. According to the Fourth Amendment cases, what matters is whether there was an objective basis for the stop, not the officer's subjective intent. The proper way to attack racial profiling is via the Equal Protection clause. But to go that route, you would need the data I referenced in my above hypothetical post. You would need to be able to prove at a minimum not that the officer stopped more minorities than whites, but that the officer stopped a higher percentage of the minorities he observed violating the law than whites. That data is impossible to obtain.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has stated,

We of course agree ... that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (U.S. 1996)

irishtrooper, thus far you have dodged my questions about whether you agree. You seem to think that it is totally within an officer's discretion to stop every minority he sees committing a traffic violation and none of the whites as long as there is actually a traffic violation. Please, disclaim that belief so I can go on with my life and stop posting in this thread.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Wow is all I can say. I guess since the laws agree with me, maybe you could be wrong. Please kindly refer to my prior post regarding divided attention tasks.

I haven't followed these arguments but to hide behind the law is a dangerous move. 100ish years ago you could've beaten a slave to death because he didn't follow orders and you could've said the exact same thing.

I wonder if the average person distrusts law enforcement because it's difficult to understand the motivation for wanting to be a police officer? It's easy to assume that those who get into law enforcement are hungry for power and likely exercise that power based on how little of it they feel elsewhere in their lives. Whether this is a true statement is dependent on the individual and their ability to self-analyze.

And to show my impartial nature: I have a few friends who work across the law enforcement fields (DEA, CIA contractor, Police officers, etc.) and a couple are very caring guys who aren't the power hungry type who I believe uphold their job to the highest standard without compromise. I have my suspicions about some of the others.

I'm backing out now, carry on.

 

[irishtrooper]

Spinning my wheels here I can see. It is impossible for some to actually believe that most police officers do their job in a lawful and honorable way. I am not sure if that is the case here(tenpenny), and it is likely that none of us know that. For the record, I do not believe that anybody should be stopped based on race, sex or the like. Given the same situation and violation, one with a white and one with a minority, I would enforce the law equally. I sincerely hope that a vast majority of ofiicers would as well. I think it is crazy to argue that stops shouldn't be made for minor violations given there is no profiling or pretext involved. I find it odd that so many could comment as experts as if they know what actually happens out there. I also would like to say that I understand how being stopped for an infraction can bother people or interfere with their lives. However, that does not mean that it should not be done. I am really tired of arguing these points. I guess at this point , since I am taking shots from all sides, I should just retreat. You may not agree with the laws, but they are the laws. Police are compensated to enforce said laws and I feel most do a fine job of that task.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Trooper, just know that you aren't being attacked personally. Fairly or not, you're representing law enforcement in this discussion and I think people have raised some concerns about certain aspects of how our laws are enforced. It isn't your responsibility to answer for every cop, but I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there. On some of this stuff we're just going to disagree, but know it isn't personal and those arguing with you mean no disrespect toward you individually.

 

[irishtrooper]

Trooper, just know that you aren't being attacked personally. Fairly or not, you're representing law enforcement in this discussion and I think people have raised some concerns about certain aspects of how our laws are enforced. It isn't your responsibility to answer for every cop, but I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there. On some of this stuff we're just going to disagree, but know it isn't personal and those arguing with you mean no disrespect toward you individually.

Thanks for that. I will say there are bad officers that enforce laws in a corrupt way. That hurts everybody. It hurts society and hurts all officer's reputations. I would not support an officer that does their job in a corrupt or otherwise incorrect way. I am used to being attacked frequently because of my profession and I may have developed a bit of a shell over the past 12+ years.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Spinning my wheels here I can see. It is impossible for some to actually believe that most police officers do their job in a lawful and honorable way. I am not sure if that is the case here(tenpenny), and it is likely that none of us know that. For the record, I do not believe that anybody should be stopped based on race, sex or the like. Given the same situation and violation, one with a white and one with a minority, I would enforce the law equally. I sincerely hope that a vast majority of ofiicers would as well. I think it is crazy to argue that stops shouldn't be made for minor violations given there is no profiling or pretext involved. I find it odd that so many could comment as experts as if they know what actually happens out there. I also would like to say that I understand how being stopped for an infraction can bother people or interfere with their lives. However, that does not mean that it should not be done. I am really tired of arguing these points. I guess at this point , since I am taking shots from all sides, I should just retreat. You may not agree with the laws, but they are the laws. Police are compensated to enforce said laws and I feel most do a fine job of that task.

I absolutely appreciate that you were willing to discuss various aspects around your career. I take issue with the law, not the enforcers. Sleep well knowing that you do your job admirably and you don't abuse it.

Again, thanks for being open to discussion. Sleep well and Go Irish!

 

[anarin]

This thread turned to hell. You potheads need to stop thinking conspiracy!

 

[Emcee77]

Trooper, just know that you aren't being attacked personally. Fairly or not, you're representing law enforcement in this discussion and I think people have raised some concerns about certain aspects of how our laws are enforced. It isn't your responsibility to answer for every cop, but I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there. On some of this stuff we're just going to disagree, but know it isn't personal and those arguing with you mean no disrespect toward you individually.

Ditto this for me ... definitely didn't mean any disrespect to trooper personally, or to cops generally, for that matter. Just wanted to have a good discussion about an issue that I find interesting, and I think we succeeded. Thanks to all for sharing their points of view.

 

[IrishLion]

Anyone still following along, this article is along the lines of what I was trying to get at in terms of the weed/socially-acceptable/morals thing and the questions that the whole situation raises: Rocky Mountain high, or how I spent my family vacation - CNN.com

 

[jerboski]

Yeah, I think the law is not nearly protective enough of individuals in these kinds of situations, and that courts have been too deferential to law enforcement and not deferential enough to the the 4th amendment. I'm not sure that makes you or the laws right.

I answered your questions before about the difference between guns and cars. I'd be interested in hearing your response to my suggestion that cops use these minor offenses as pretext to stop people so they can fish for bad guys. You seem to have already admitted that goes on, so what I'm interested in is your opinion about whether that is fair to the average person that has to have their day interrupted as a result of these fishing expeditions.

By minor I am assuming you mean failure to signal, however he has already proved his point, most if not all cities and states enforce a model traffic code which designates failing to signal as a primary violation so therefore the officer has every right to initiate a traffic stop with that individual hence the violation being in the model traffic code as a primary violation regardless how minuscule you think it is. He is absolutely spot on that many criminals and drunk drivers are found and arrested because of traffic stops like these, the officer has discretion in writing a summons and most in my experience use common sense and good judgment but like any profession there are some that are out of line.

 

[Rhode Irish]

By minor I am assuming you mean failure to signal, however he has already proved his point, most if not all cities and states enforce a model traffic code which designates failing to signal as a primary violation so therefore the officer has every right to initiate a traffic stop with that individual hence the violation being in the model traffic code as a primary violation regardless how minuscule you think it is. He is absolutely spot on that many criminals and drunk drivers are found and arrested because of traffic stops like these, the officer has discretion in writing a summons and most in my experience use common sense and good judgment but like any profession there are some that are out of line.

That is all super (except for the circular reasoning you used, which is never super). My point is that the law is bad. These minor offenses shouldn't be sufficient reason to pull someone over. They are only on the books because you can always find one if you want to pull someone over. Therefore, the violation itself is pretext for a stop that would otherwise be unwarranted, and the is law in violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment which was intended to prevent that kind of harassment by the government. This is obvious if you think about when the last time you got pulled over for having a headlight out, or failing to signal, or rolling through a stop sign. It used to happens to me as a teenager, but hasn't happened to once since I became an adult and started driving a nice car. The law is selectively enforced, which is what makes it bullshit.

My point has never been that these types stops are illegal, just that they are morally reprehensible and they shouldn't happen in a "free" society.

 

[jerboski]

That is all super (except for the circular reasoning you used, which is never super). My point is that the law is bad. These minor offenses shouldn't be sufficient reason to pull someone over. They are only on the books because you can always find one if you want to pull someone over. Therefore, the violation itself is pretext for a stop that would otherwise be unwarranted, and the is law in violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment which was intended to prevent that kind of harassment by the government. This is obvious if you think about when the last time you got pulled over for having a headlight out, or failing to signal, or rolling through a stop sign. It used to happens to me as a teenager, but hasn't happened to once since I became an adult and started driving a nice car. The law is selectively enforced, which is what makes it bullshit.

My point has never been that these types stops are illegal, just that they are morally reprehensible and they shouldn't happen in a "free" society.

Its funny that you say that because I was stopped about two weeks ago for my headlight being out around 9:30 p.m., the entire contact took about 2 minutes max. The officer enlightened me that the headlight was out and that was the end of the contact. My vehicle is a 2013 Jeep Rubicon so although not the most luxurious vehicle it defiantly is a "nice" car. I see your point however I disagree, you are free in this country, your just not free to do whatever you please on the road.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Right. The cop stopped you, determined you weren't a threat, then let you go. So to you it's no big deal. If you were demographically different, you may have had a lengthier ordeal.

 

[jerboski]

Right. The cop stopped you, determined you weren't a threat, then let you go. So to you it's no big deal. If you were demographically different, you may have had a lengthier ordeal.

I think your missing the premise, most if not all contacts by a police officer are of this nature. If you as a driver have all of your legal required information such as a valid drivers license, proof of insurance and registration and you give no signs of being intoxicated at that hour then regardless of your vehicle or demographic the stop will more than likely end in the same result as mine. Police Officers do use these type of stops to lead them to bigger crimes, its a necessity for them to be able to perform their job in my opinion.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think your missing the premise, most if not all contacts by a police officer are of this nature. If you as a driver have all of your legal required information such as a valid drivers license, proof of insurance and registration and you give no signs of being intoxicated at that hour then regardless of your vehicle or demographic the stop will more than likely end in the same result as mine. Police Officers do use these type of stops to lead them to bigger crimes, its a necessity for them to be able to perform their job in my opinion.

I'm not missing the premise. I understand that, and that is exactly what I have a problem with. The fishing expedition is bullshit. The whole nature of policing is invasive.

 

[jerboski]

I'm not missing the premise. I understand that, and that is exactly what I have a problem with. The fishing expedition is bullshit. The whole nature of policing is invasive.

Without fishing or a better word for it "investigating" how can a police officer catch any criminals unless they by very slim chance happen to be standing there while they commit the crime??

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Without fishing or a better word for it "investigating" how can a police officer catch any criminals...??

Without "fishing" how can a police officer harrass, intimidate, and threaten ordinary law-abiding citizens? I think that's the heart of the trade-off. I personally would take less harassment of myself even if it means fewer criminals caught via pretextual stops.

 

[adsnorri]

Rhode- You are hitting the nail on the head. It is a thought process that is hard to come by. Cheers to that my friend.

 

[Emcee77]

Without "fishing" how can a police officer harrass, intimidate, and threaten ordinary law-abiding citizens? I think that's the heart of the trade-off. I personally would take less harassment of myself even if it means fewer criminals caught via pretextual stops.

Lol. Very well put.

Jerboski, it really does sound like you are saying that the point of traffic laws is to give police a pretext to investigate people for crimes they have no reasonable suspicion those people have committed. In practice, it often happens that police find contraband or apprehend a fugitive by making a routine traffic stop, but that's not why we have traffic laws. Traffic laws exist to protect the safety of motorists. To the extent that they don't do that, and enforcing them serves no purpose other than to give police the ability to harass otherwise apparently law-abiding citizens if they want to, we should get rid of them.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. I would argue that a traffic stop pursuant to a law that serves no rational purpose other than to allow police to stop motorists and investigate them violates the Fourth Amendment because it is an unreasonable seizure.

And I should add, I'm not saying--as some others seem to be--that traffic laws that allow police to stop people for failing to signal, etc., serve no purpose. I'm just saying that jerboski's argument proves too much ... if traffic laws are justified by their usefulness in stopping people the police otherwise have no reason to suspect of more serious wrongdoing, they violate at least the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Without fishing or a better word for it "investigating" how can a police officer catch any criminals unless they by very slim chance happen to be standing there while they commit the crime??

Maybe by pursuing evidence rather than pulling over people with broken tail lights?

 

[Fbolt]

I always thought driving a vehicle is a privilege in this country. If you drive, you agree to follow the laws - and if you don't there are consequences. Turn signals, lights out, following speed limits, etc are all laws that if I break can result in a stop by the police. I have no problem with this.

 

[jerboski]

Lol. Very well put.

Jerboski, it really does sound like you are saying that the point of traffic laws is to give police a pretext to investigate people for crimes they have no reasonable suspicion those people have committed. In practice, it often happens that police find contraband or apprehend a fugitive by making a routine traffic stop, but that's not why we have traffic laws. Traffic laws exist to protect the safety of motorists. To the extent that they don't do that, and enforcing them serves no purpose other than to give police the ability to harass otherwise apparently law-abiding citizens if they want to, we should get rid of them.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. I would argue that a traffic stop pursuant to a law that serves no rational purpose other than to allow police to stop motorists and investigate them violates the Fourth Amendment because it is an unreasonable seizure.

And I should add, I'm not saying--as some others seem to be--that traffic laws that allow police to stop people for failing to signal, etc., serve no purpose. I'm just saying that jerboski's argument proves too much ... if traffic laws are justified by their usefulness in stopping people the police otherwise have no reason to suspect of more serious wrongdoing, they violate at least the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

I'm absolutely not saying that the point of a traffic stop is to investigate further crimes, the point I'm making is the officer has lawful grounds to initiate a traffic stop when he/she observes a primary violation such as failure to signal. During this stop, the officer should ask for my required information and while doing that if the officer comes upon other criminal activity then he is justified. The point of the stop is too in my case inform me that my headlight was out however during that stop if I had been intoxicated the officer should "investigate" that, so in essence the stop is for my safety and others that my headlight isn't working. Hope this clarifys my position

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Every time I break the law, I check my tail lights and blinkers first.